Quote of the Day: Why Health Care Is Not a Right

The problem with his statement is that rights aren't the government's to give. John Locke, the 17th century English philosopher, wrote about inalienable rights: God-given rights that can't be taken away. (Agnostics and atheists may prefer to think of these rights as inherent in nature.) Locke considered life, liberty and property to be among such natural rights.

A century later, Thomas Jefferson adopted Locke's definition when he drafted the U.S. Declaration of Independence, citing "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights. Government's role is "to secure these Rights," Jefferson wrote, not to create new ones.

The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates some of these natural rights: freedom of speech and religion; a free press and free assembly; and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Even more important, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from enacting any law interfering with the exercise of these freedoms. (I'll leave the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms to Constitutional scholars.)

That hasn't stopped Progressives from creating all kinds of new rights: a right to a job, a right to a minimum wage, a right to health care.

These aren't rights as conceived by the Founding Fathers. A right is something we can all exercise simultaneously without imposing a burden on someone else. The only obligation, in fact, is that others not interfere with an individual's exercise of his rights.

That concise concept of rights, sometimes referred to as negative rights, comes from the book, Clichés of Politics, a collection of essays published by the Foundation for Economic Education. It provides a simple basis for determining what constitutes a right.

Many politicians insist on transforming every privilege or benefit or entitlement into a right.

(bold added) 

This excerpt is from an article by mainstream commentator, former Bloomberg analyst, Caroline Baum at EC21.org on first presidential debate of the Democratic Party

Quote of the Day: Conspicuous consumption should not be the goal of a prosperous society

Someone once said that the wealth of nations comes not from what we spend but from what we sow (actually, I wrote that several years ago). Like the farmer, a nation has to plant seeds in the spring to reap a good harvest in the fall, which is how Chauncey Gardiner, the fictional hero of Jerzy Kozinski's Being There, might have put it. For the rest of us, it's called investing in the future.

Just imagine if mom and dad, grams and gramps, doubled up on their holiday spending on toys and other tchotchkes for the kids. Spending would go up, GDP would go up, and toymakers would have to increase production to replenish their inventory. They might even hire a few new workers. The increased demand for toys would trickle down to suppliers, including manufacturers of plastics and other materials.

Then what? Tomorrow's growth is a function of what we invest today. It is investment in plants and equipment that expands productive capacity, increases efficiency, lowers prices, leads to higher real wages and enables the economy to expand at a faster rate in the future. There is no free lunch, but productivity growth is about as close as it gets.

So unless you think Barbie holds the key to a higher standard of living, conspicuous consumption—as it was known when Americans were being encouraged to save—should not be the goal of a prosperous society.

Consumer spending does send an important signal to producers as to how to best allocate scarce resources. Not that entrepreneurs are listening. Alexander Graham Bell didn't need consumer demand to encourage him to invent a piece of equipment that would transmit speech electrically. Nor did Steve Jobs wait for iPhone demand before creating Apple's incredibly popular smart phone. Entrepreneurs invent things because they anticipate a market for, and profit from, their product. If they change the world in the process, so be it. They don't need encouragement or validation—seed capital will suffice—before they create something the public didn't know it wanted or needed.

This is from former Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum at the Economics21.org

Quote of the Day: Economics isn’t, and will never be, a science

I wonder how Chetty would use those tools to provide compelling answers to the following questions:

1. What is the expected rate of economic growth in conjunction with a 4 percent federal funds rate?

2. What is the effect on inflation of a 300 percent increase in the monetary base?

3. What is the effect -- the multiplier -- of a $1 increase in government spending on output?

4. What is the nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or the jobless rate that triggers rising prices?

5. What is the wealth effect from a 20 percent increase in the major stock indexes? What about a 100 percent increase?

The answer to all five questions is, it depends. And that’s one of the main reasons that economics isn’t, and will never be, a science.

Isaac Newton, the English physicist, mathematician and philosopher, pretty much explained the fundamental difference between economics and the hard sciences more than 300 years ago. With the physical sciences, we observe what happens in nature. Then we try to quantify it. An apple falls from the tree to the ground with increasing velocity. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level. Light travels faster than sound. Each observation yields the same result. It’s why mathematicians end their proofs with QED -- “quod erat demonstrandum,” or that which was to be demonstrated -- and economists don’t.

Or, to paraphrase Newton: The same results are always obtainable under the same conditions. It is the repetitive duplication of a result that defines what are called laws of nature.

A law of nature, when properly measured, will yield duplicate results. A law of economics, even if properly measured, will not.

This is from Bloomberg’s columnist Caroline Baum explaining the difference between science and economics.

Thanksgiving Day: The Triumph of Capitalism

Americans celebrate the traditional Thanksgiving day today.

But many fail to realize that the quintessence of Thanksgiving is the showcase triumph of the experimentation of property rights, division of labor, and voluntary exchange or laissez faire capitalism over collectivism.

From a 2003 article by Bloomberg’s Caroline Baum…

One of the traditions the Pilgrims had brought with them from England was a practice known as ``farming in common.'' Everything they produced was put into a common pool, and the harvest was rationed among them according to need.

They had thought ``that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing,'' Bradford recounts.

They were wrong. ``For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte,'' Bradford writes.

Young, able-bodied men resented working for others without compensation. Incentives were lacking.

After the Pilgrims had endured near-starvation for three winters, Bradford decided to experiment when it came time to plant in the spring of 1623. He set aside a plot of land for each family, that ``they should set corne every man for his owne particular, and in that regard trust to themselves.''

A New Way

The results were nothing short of miraculous.

Bradford writes: ``This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content.''

The women now went willingly into the field, carrying their young children on their backs. Those who previously claimed they were too old or ill to work embraced the idea of private property and enjoyed the fruits of their labor, eventually producing enough to trade their excess corn for furs and other desired commodities.

Given appropriate incentives, the Pilgrims produced and enjoyed a bountiful harvest in the fall of 1623 and set aside ``a day of thanksgiving'' to thank God for their good fortune.

``Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day,'' Bradford writes in an entry from 1647, the last year covered by his History.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Pilgrim's good fortune was not a matter of luck. In 1623, they were responding to the same incentives that have been adopted almost universally four centuries later.

Remember the lessons of Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

Quote of the Day: Industrial Policies

From Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum

Yes, other countries, such as China, have "industrial policies," with government subsidizing favored industries. History isn't on their side. In the 1980s, Japan was a manufacturing and exporting powerhouse, the envy of the world. Three decades later, where's the evidence of success?